Google Ads


Site Stats

SSP Daily Digest: 4/30 (Afternoon Edition)

by: Crisitunity

Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 3:10 PM EDT


AR-Sen: The SEIU is turning their amps up to 11 in a final effort to beat Blanche Lincoln in the Democratic primary. They're ponying up another $1 million for a new TV ad blitz, focusing on Lincoln's support for NAFTA, CAFTA, and sundry other free-trade deals.

FL-Sen: Looks like the "Help wanted" sign is going out at Charlie Crists's office. As expected, much of his top-tier staff evacuated en masse; he lost communications director Andrea Saul, spokesperson Amanda Hennenberg, and campaign counsel Ben Ginsberg (all Beltway types left over from when Crist was the NRSC's prize pony, who just headed back to the GOP's mothership). Also former Crist marionette George LeMieux severed his strings: the seat-warming Senator says he won't support Crist's independent bid.

NV-Sen: Imagine that... a Democrat actually taking to the airwaves to explain the benefits of the broadly-misunderstood (or just plain not-understood-at-all) health care reform bill and not just ceding the discursive arena to right-wing radio and astroturfers? Better late than never, I guess. Harry Reid is forging ahead with that, launching three different new TV ads featuring stories from actual Nevadans actually benefiting from HCR.

OH-Sen (pdf): There's one more poll of the Democratic Senate primary in Ohio, from Suffolk this time. They find an even bigger edge for Lee Fisher over Jennifer Brunner than did PPP; in fact, Suffolk has Fisher doubling up on her, 55-27. Voters may be thinking strategically: they also find that respondents feel Fisher has a better chance of beating Rob Portman than does Brunner, by a lop-sided 55-15 margin. Brunner voters report that, if Fisher wins the election, 74% will vote for Fisher and 8% for Portman.

AZ-Gov: PPP has one more installment in its Arizona sample today: the Republican primary in the gubernatorial race. As other pollsters have found, once-wobbly incumbent Jan Brewer has strengthened her primary position (while destabilized her general election position) by signing off on Arizona's new racial profiling law. Brewer leads the pack at 38, over fractured opposition led by NRA board member Owen Buz Mills at 19, state Treasurer Dean Martin at 16, and former university regent John Munger at 3. (In PPP's last poll here, from September, Brewer was losing a head-to-head against Martin 37-26.) PPP also did a fantasy-baseball poll that included Maricopa Co. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who, as he does every four years, has been expressing interest in the race but not moving forward in it. Arpaio wins that version of the primary, taking 33%, with 25 for Brewer, 15 for Martin, 11 for Mills, and 1 for Munger.

MN-Gov: With the Republican endorsing convention in Minnesota already underway, most media accounts are focusing on Sarah Palin's last-minute endorsement of state Rep. Tom Emmer, but there's a more important endorsement at work here in terms of potentially moving some delegates: Norm Coleman is now also backing Emmer and privately making calls to delegates on Emmer's behalf. The GOPers have already endorsed in some of the downballot races, maybe most notably the Auditor's race, where they endorsed former Auditor Pat Anderson (who had been running for Governor for a while, until she decided to drop down and try to get her old job back instead).

UT-Gov: Mason-Dixon, on behalf of the Salt Lake Tribune, took another look at the general election in the Utah governor's race, which is definitely looking like a heavy lift for Salt Lake County mayor Peter Corroon. The Democrat trails GOP incumbent Gary Herbert 61-30, an even better showing than Herbert's 55-30 result in January.

FL-16: Whew. After making some noises about a possible comeback attempt, ex-Rep. Tim Mahoney decided on filing day that he wouldn't run to get his seat back. He still took a parting shot at Rep. Tom Rooney, saying he's part of the GOP's move to the "radical right." Some Dudes Jim Horn and Ed Tautiva are all the Dems have on the ballot in this R+5 district, unless something changes in the next few hours.

HI-01: The Republicans continue to very subtly funnel money into the 1st, somewhat mirroring their stealth strategy on how they got similarly-blue MA-Sen off the ground. Rather than the NRCC charging in with both barrels blazing, instead there's a push for individual House GOP members to contribute directly to Charles Djou; about 40 have done so already.

IN-02: The National Rifle Association slammed GOP candidate Jackie Walorski. No, that's not because the right-wing Walorski suddenly had a change of heart on the gun issue; instead, it was because she was claiming the NRA's endorsement. That was only for her 2008 legislative bid, the NRA said, and she has not been endorsed yet for this year for the different office.

IN-03: Looks like Rep. Mark Souder isn't going to be in the House much longer, regardless of how next week's primary plays out. Brian Howey says Souder has been telling him that he'd already been contemplating retirement in 2012, and the stress of trying to win his unexpectedly-tough primary election has "sealed it" for him.

PA-04: Here's a last-minute sign of life for Keith Rothfus, who'd been the leading GOP contender here up until the moment when former US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan announced (although Rothfus beat Buchanan at fundraising last quarter). He got the endorsement today of Glen Meakem, a wealthy businessman and part-time talk radio host who's something of a behind-the-scenes power in Republican circles in western Pennsylvania and who had briefly considered a Senate bid last year.

SC-04: Rep. Bob Inglis's main threat this year is in the GOP primary, not the general, and he launched two different ads reminding voters that he's actually pretty conservative. One ad touts his NRA endorsement, while the other runs down the litany of things he opposed (health care reform, stimulus, cap-and-trade, auto industry bailout).

NY-St. Sen.: A long-time Republican stalwart in the New York state Senate is retiring: Dale Volker (in office since 1975). Democrats looking to pad their narrow majority in the Senate may need to look elsewhere, though; this district in the Buffalo suburbs and surrounding rural counties is one of the most conservative in the state, with a 79K-to-65K GOP registration advantage, and won 54-40 by John McCain.

Arizona: Arizona has been doing all kinds of weird things lately, and here's one more to add to the list. One of the few states to not have a Lt. Governor (the SoS is 2nd in line of succession, which is how Jan Brewer became Governor), Arizona is planning to have a Lt. Governor... but only because they would eliminate the SoS position and give all those duties to the LG. What's even weirder is that they'd start doing what Illinois just decided to stop doing because the results were so uniformly terrible: the Governor and LG candidates will run separately in the primary, but be joined together on one ticket via shotgun wedding for the general election. The idea cleared the legislature, but because it's a constitutional amendment, the idea has to pass a voter referendum before it becomes law.

Puerto Rico: The House approved allowing Puerto Rico to hold a plebiscite on its grey-area status (the last one was in 1998, where they decided to remain a commonwealth). It'll be a two-step vote, where the first vote will ask whether it should remain a commonwealth or not. If the answer is "no," the second vote will ask whether it should become independent, a U.S. state, still remain a commonwealth, or enter some other sovereign-but-connected-to-the-U.S. status. If it voted for statehood, Congress would still have to approve making it a state. Of course, this has to pass the Senate as well before the vote could happen, so it may get kicked down the road for a while.

OFA: Nathan Gonzales has a thorough look at the Obama campaign's state directors, and how they're part of OFA's pivot to focus on turning out the same voters for the 2010 midterms. Here's a handy table of what all the directors are up to these days.

History: Rhodes Cook has an interesting column that's been getting linked all over the place in the last couple days: a much more apt comparison for what the Democrats are getting themselves this year, rather than 1994, is 1966. The parallels are that the Democrats were facing some inevitable snap-back after overperforming in the 1964 election (winning nearly 2/3s majorities in each chamber), and the GOP quickly got back up off the mat after the Dems pushed the limits in passing a variety of Great Society legislation (most notably Medicare). Of course, the Democrats still took a bath, losing 47 in the House and 3 in the Senate, so it's still not really something the Democrats should aspire towards.

Crisitunity :: SSP Daily Digest: 4/30 (Afternoon Edition)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

OH-SEN
I'm willing to believe that the Suffolk survey was off by a lot on its age demographics, that a 50% 56 and older pool is just too old.

But 55-27 is 55-27.  Ouch.


Medicare analogy
In 1966 the Democrats enacted Medicare and then lost 47 seats in the House. It was worth it. Aren't you glad we have Medicare today? The Democrats need to defend their vote for Health Care Reform and say it was worth it even if the Dems lose some seats, just like Medicare was worth it.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

Medicare in 1966
Medicare did not cause the Democrats to lose 47 seats.  The Democrats were overextended by their impressive win in 1964 coupled with being in office for 6 years usually hurts any party.  Maybe someone could enlighten me, but I believe the Vietnam unpleasantness had not fully exploded by this point.  Regardless, saying Medicare caused them to lose seats is probably not all of the story.  

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

[ Parent ]
no but it makes a good talking point


26, male, Dem, NJ-12

[ Parent ]
Exactly... and yes, Vietnam was the REAL reason for the big loss
Things were getting much worst in 'nam in 1965 and especially 1966 in terms of US casualties and engagement.  

[ Parent ]
If you read Rick Perlstein's Nixonland
It's pretty clear that racial backlash (esp. among conservative southerners) was the main cause for Dems getting slammed in '66.

[ Parent ]
notice the Senate was almost a wash
and that was despite the fact they had a much larger majority than we do now. I could conceivably see Democrats losing just one seat or breaking even in the Senate this cycle.  

[ Parent ]
I think our best-case scenario
realistically is a net loss of two.

[ Parent ]
Im getting more and more hopeful
as each candidate seems to crash and burn.  Ayotte and Norton still seem to pretty untested and are polling well based off national environment only.  That certainly may be enough, but you never know.  Ayotte could turn-out to be a Lowden once we see more from her campaign besides fundraising.

[ Parent ]
Republicans will gain 4
The Dems will lose ND, DE, IL, AR, PA and NV, but will gain KY and MO.  The GOP has a good candidate and the wind to its back in NH and the Democrats are having fundraising issues in OH.

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

[ Parent ]
Disagree vehemently
About both KY and OH.  If any seats are going to flip, it's Ohio.  Ohio right now is the only race in which the Democrats are LEADING, despite the national environment, in a pre-eminent swing state.  Now, the GOP argument is that Portman isn't well known and Brunner/Fisher both are, but considering that Fisher and Brunner are only known by roughly 50-60% of the electorate in most polls, that's not much of an argument.  Portman has nowhere to go but down, the national environment is the only thing keeping him alive in the race.  And I don't buy the money argument either, the Dem candidate, probably Fisher at this point, will do a good job fundraising once the democratic electorate is consolidated, and he'll probably get a ton of assistance from the DNC and DCCC.  It's not like he'll be invisible while Portman is running ads at all hours of the day (which by the way doesn't work, just ask Meg Whitman)

As for Kentucky, I think we would flip Florida, New Hampshire, maybe even Georgia before we flip Kentucky.  Kentucky is simply too conservative.  Plus, the only candidate that can win for us is losing the primary, that being Jack Conway.  The democratic base won't get behind Daniel Mongiardo, and nor should they considering he's a potential party switcher.  We'd need Conway to win the primary, have Rand Paul win the Rep primary, and have Paul run a crappy campaign, and then, maybe, we win KY.  But we'd really need to thread the needle.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13


[ Parent ]
Kentucky is not that conservative
Regardless of the nominee, Kentucky is going to be a prime target for the Democrats with a lunatic in Rand Paul winning for the GOP.  Being a moderate Democrat in Kentucky with a downright weirdo on the GOP side should make every Democrat out there happy.  

23, male, center-right cynical Republican, PA-7

[ Parent ]
That's a ridiculous estimate
Democrats are not going to lose IL, for one. Gianoullias has already launched a fantastic counter ad to the voters, clarifying his position and claiming that the bank's position was solid prior to his departure in 2006 and the economic meltdown, which he reminded voters had taken down a huge number of Illinois businesses. It was a very savvy ad in which he tried to portray himself as having a little more personal insight into the lives of the many Illinoisans who have been hurt in the recession.

And the fact is his position has stabilized again. The Bank issue isn't going to get any bigger, voters have been saturated with it by the Chicago Tribune and Mark Kirk for months, especially the last few weeks. They frankly aren't going to care anymore by September. Kirk has to be worried that the fact is no matter what he's done he's never passed 44% in any poll and in fact he's average a points less than that right now in the pollster.com averages. Kirk's inability to get momentum on Gianoullias and get out of the 40-42% range is just an indicator of what we can expect. Illinois is a Democratic state, not just mildly so, strongly so, in the end it will line up behind the Democratic candidate. I've seen maps of what the state would have to look like for Kirk to pull off a 50.1% victory; he has to win every county in the state except Cook. I have a hard time seeing him even be able to win Lake County even with his base in the northern portions of it. That's one of the most ridiculous bits of prediction I've seen tossed about nonchalantly on this site.

While I won't argue that DE and ND are probable losses right now, (with DE possibly getting interesting as Chris Koons is a legitimate candidate with a strong political base, good money, and a real opportunity to test whether Castle can run a real campaign, much like how Joe Biden won in 1972), I also can't imagine you'd call PA a loss, especially if Specter wins the primary, because really, I can assure you, knowing Specter, Toomey will never know what hit him. Within the space of a month he will be solidly labeled as a radical rightest running against a principled moderate.

The problem there is actually Sestak; he's sapped Specter's resources, and kept him preoccupied and busy with the primary, allowing Toomey to define himself and dominate the general election campaign. You can look at Pollster.com averages and see a direct coalition between the primary and Specter's steadily declining poll numbers, which will bounce back again when its time for the General. They are already tightening again slightly.

So, overlooking two pretty dumb predictions, you've made two accurate calls, that people should be confident expecting at this point.

Democrats have excellent shots at winning Missouri, (Robin Carnahan just needs to start hitting Blunt as an establishment insider, and she also needs to start bringing to light the special kind of crazy he's been campaigning on), and Ohio, where Rob Portman seems both limited and hampered by his close ties to President Bush, regardless of his financial advantage.

And I'm not giving up on NH yet. I don't think Avoyette is that good a candidate, and I think Democrats have a chance to do damage control there.

Regardless, it seems to me the election will be a draw. The people who say otherwise aren't seeing the signs. The Republicans peaked 8 months too early, and right now it looks like Democrats could be buoyed in November by steady economic improvement as we seem to have turned a corner in that regard.

In the house things are even better; Republicans have neither the money nor the candidate quality nor the targets to capitalize. A worst case scenario at this point is frankly 12-15 losses. The fact that Republicans are not out in front in districts like TN-08, AL-02 and VA-05 gives me huge confidence Democrats will weather this cycle in the house as well.


[ Parent ]
Interesting long post
But I think we should be careful about using words like "dumb" when talking about predictions. We don't know for sure in advance who will win what.

As for Illinois, I doubt that the bank scandal will "go away" as a story, and I'm not nearly as sanguine about Giannoulias' chances as you are.

On the Missouri race, if the Democrats lose it, they'll have a really long night. I think it's one of their best chances to pick up a seat.

On your prediction of a draw in the Senate races: It is very unusual for the party whose President is in office not to lose seats in both Houses in the first-term midterm election. And unless unemployment is reduced significantly (under 8%) by November, I will be really shocked if your prediction comes true. I won't call it a "dumb" prediction, though; merely a doubtful and highly optimistic one.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
Can any New Yorkers tell me
if Charlie Ramos has a chance in his primary challenge against Sen. Ruben Diaz (R...oops D-Bronx)?

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


Sen Diaz's son is the BEEP
Sen. Diaz's son is the Boro President so he will have the entire Bronx Democratic machine behind him. The Boro Prez job is one giant patronage mill and most Bronx pols and unions wouldnt want to cross him.

Diaz while a homophobe and a wack job is quite popular in the district. So I think he will be tough to beat.

Besides I think the reformers will be so busy trying to oust the Democrats Senate Majority Leader, the right hororable Pedro Espanda, that Diaz might get a pass.

Fight global warming & help disaster relief efforts by raising money for Music for Relief when you search the web! Click here for more info:
http://searchmfr.swagbucks.com...


[ Parent ]
I sort of expected to hear that
but it is a shame nevertheless.

I at least hope Espada is beat by another marriage supporter so we don't get set back one.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/


[ Parent ]
MN Gov
After 1 Ballot

Emmer 53.3%
Siefert 42.8%

None of the also rans recieved enough votes to continue on. They both endorsed Siefert.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan


60% needed to endorse


"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
Ballot 2
Emmer 56%
Siefert 43.8%

60% needed to get endorsement.

Looks like the Republicans are going to nominate an extreme right teabagger (Sara Palin approved).

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan


[ Parent ]
Siefort concedes
http://politicsinminnesota.com...

Good news for Dems. IMHO Emmer is unelectable.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan


[ Parent ]
S/B Siefert Concedes
I am the worlds worst speller.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
A couple Emmer quotes
I don't think you can call yourself a freedom-loving American and be a Democrat

On the Arizona immegration law.

... Emmer called the Arizona law a "wonderful first step,"
 

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
Someone has to ask him
what the second step should be.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
If I were MAK
I would just run that first quote. Over and over again.  

[ Parent ]
MAK
may not be the nominee. But the statement goes for all candidates.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
Yikes.
   His webpage's health care section only mention tort reform as a solution.  Who is the independence party candidate that will ruin this election for the DFL?

24, Male, GA-05

[ Parent ]
Tom Horner...
... is the likely Independence Party candidate. He was a lifelong Republican who was former Republican Senator Dave Durenburgers chief of staff.

Horner could do pretty well. In Minnesota a live body will get 5% on the Idependence party line. I could eaily see him getting 10-20% of the vote.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan


[ Parent ]
And it will hopefully come more from the GOP leaning side
and not hurt our candidate as much

[ Parent ]
That's definitely a plus.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!


[ Parent ]
I tried looking into the politics of puerto rico yesterday
And I was thoroughly confused, because it seems the New Progressive Party in Puerto Rico is a coalition of people who align with both the republican party and the democratic party who want Puerto Rico to become a state and the other major party, the Popular democratic party is just made up of members who seem to affiliate with the US Democratic party but also support statehood.

If Puerto Rico were to become a state, does anyone know what likely party their representatives and senators would be from?

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)


Almost certainly the Democrats
the state is heavily Democratic; look at the Demographics of Puerto Ricans in the U.S. It would reliably in the Democratic party's camp.  

[ Parent ]
I heard it would be like a 4-1 Democratic delegation
I'm not sure where I heard that must have been during the primaries of 2008 but I remember it being like a pretty solid 4-1 or 5-1 delegation depending on the 2010 census numbers.

[ Parent ]
Don't assume that too quickly
The Governor and former Resident Commissioner, Luis Fortuno, was allied with the Republicans.

[ Parent ]
as is vermont's governor, and hawaii's
governors are much more likely to be from the opposite party

18, Dem, CA-14 (home) CA-09 (college, next year). social libertarian, economic liberal, fiscal conservative.   Everybody should put age and CD here. :)

[ Parent ]
Michael Bloomberg
is naming former Indianapolis mayor Stephen Goldsmith as his deputy mayor. I'm slightly surprised; I didn't know they were close at all.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_...

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  


Yeah
That was an odd one - not every day a former mayor from another state becomes a deputy mayor in NYC. What's Goldsmith's deal? I heard on NY1 that he had worked for Bush... not exactly an ideal pedigree in this town. But I guess Bloomberg has nothing to live for anymore.

[ Parent ]
He
served as chief domestic policy advisor in his 2000 campaign. Bush also appointed him to lead some community service thing as well. He also works for Fannie Mae. I also heard Goldsmith was even thinking of running for the Senate in 2012, if Lugar retires. I don't know why Bloomberg would want him. It seems to me he would appoint someone from his home turf instead.

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
With Arpaio only up single-digits over Brewer, there ain't a shot in hell he pulls the trigger


For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

can repubs really use opposing the auto industry bailout as a plus (outside of michigan)
considering it kind of worked.  Sure the big two haven't made money yet, but they paid the loan back with interest.  As long as we don't do it again, dems can say they helped save/stave off the inevitable and made money for the taxpayers at the same time.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

Bailout
is the most evil toxic disgusting word in Washington in my view. Is that really, really stupid? Yeah, but it's just the way it is. People just tie it to the bank bailout which they greatly oppose. Sad, because the auto bailout helped a lot, and if people really understood it, they would approve of it as well.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
i understand the toxicity of bailouts but...
i think "they paid it back with interest" coupled with "never again" might be an effective way of defending that particular vote.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

[ Parent ]
I don't see how you can say it worked
Seeing how both GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.  The reason they were bailed out was to avoid bankruptcy.  

[ Parent ]
Not really
The GM loan was essentially a giant debtor-in-possession bankruptcy loan designed to keep GM from shutting down its plants, not to prevent Chapter 11. (This reporting says that the Chapter 11 filing was in fact triggered by the government: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/... -- in order to preserve the loan that kept the company operating.)

[ Parent ]
I said it kind of worked
in the sense that it kept them from going out of business permanently.  My big question is how they could have paid off the billions of dollars without making any money.  My guess is private loans that they'll eventually default on.  When that happens, the politically smart thing to do would leave it alone.  If they fail again and the dems loan them money it'll really look like we're propping up failed businesses.    

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox